I would expect that only a minority of those rear-end hits were truly driver running in the back of cyclist, with the majority being hitting the cyclist whilst trying to fit through a gap which is too narrow. I don't often get the impression that I haven't been seen, but I frequently feel the need to move left because a car has decided to sneak through a narrow gap. The study doesn't appear to have a separate category for that despite the fact that overtaking manoeuvers are often stated to be a primary cause of accidents. I also suspect that a driver running into a cyclist in that manner is more likely to state "i didn't see him because [insert victim/weather/visibility blaming excuse] and the first I knew was when I heard a noise" rather than "I was impatient and went through a narrow gap and hit him"

But as they say in the article, the helmet data for fatalities is meaningless without data for the number of cyclists wearing helmets.

I'm probably out-of-date as I haven't driven in the states for some time, but when I did (much of southern US), I found drivers particularly tolerant and much more "laid-back" than in the UK. You could be waiting at the from of a line of cars at lights, fail to notice the lights change, be too late as they turn back to red and the queue would happily wait behind you no hooting, just quietly waiting. Whereas UK many drivers seem to be in a mad rush to get everywhere and rather impatient.

The rear-end risks are interesting. (Noting that most of my riding is done on single track rural roads) I tend to pay less attention to cars approaching from behind than those from in front (except when manoeuvring). I assume this is because I think of them as having more time to see me and our relative speeds as lower than for a car approaching from ahead. But thinking about it I can see a possible reason for the increased injury (or risk of being killed) from a rear-end; when colliding head-on I'd assume you tend to end-up on top of the vehicle bonnet whereas with a rear-end you are more likely to end-up under the vehicle. Both sound pretty nasty.

There is nothing I can see identifying "car-dooring". Particularly in my mind today as I nearly had a car hit me from ahead as I was NOT prepared to move into the "car-door" zone and they were not prepared to wait in the section of road where there no parked cars.

One aspect limiting the usefulness of these analyses is the lack of base data about cyclists. The London report seems to have data about "Pedal Cycle Movements" but the KSI/Injury analyses would be far more useful if somebody collated better information about cyclists (trips/distances/age/gender/type/training/experience/etc.) and them matched these to the injury data.

Because one could conclude that males riders are at far greater risk than female riders (from "Over three quarters (78%) of P/C casualties in 2010 were male"); but that would be ridiculous and the info is of limited use without knowing the ratios of male to female riders. etc.

Here is a New York Times article about cycling and helmets in the USA.

Millions of parents take it as an article of faith that putting a bicycle helmet on their children, or themselves, will help keep them out of harm's way.

But new data on bicycle accidents raises questions about that. The number of head injuries has increased 10 percent since 1991, even as bicycle helmet use has risen sharply, according to figures compiled by the Consumer Product Safety Commission. But given that ridership has declined over the same period, the rate of head injuries per active cyclist has increased 51 percent just as bicycle helmets have become widespread.

I apologise for the H word, but the asterisks in the first post are a poor disguise. It does seem to me an anomaly that general discussion of safety is fine in "On the Road", but when the discussion gets to one particular aspect of safety it has to go in the ghetto.

Interesting, thanks: looking at serious injuries (too few deaths - from a statistically robust viewpoint ) only 5% where cyclist rear-ended by another vehicle, and 4% where cyclists ran into the back of another vehicle (are there that many time trials in TFL area?!? - sorry )

Psamathe wrote:I'm probably out-of-date as I haven't driven in the states for some time, but when I did (much of southern US), I found drivers particularly tolerant and much more "laid-back" than in the UK. You could be waiting at the from of a line of cars at lights, fail to notice the lights change, be too late as they turn back to red and the queue would happily wait behind you no hooting, just quietly waiting. Whereas UK many drivers seem to be in a mad rush to get everywhere and rather impatient.

That's because the person you might hoot is probably carrying a gun in the US.

But although it might seem tolerant and laid back, there are 35,000 deaths a year on US roads and that is with just five times the population of the UK and a much lower traffic density.

TonyR wrote:That's because the person you might hoot is probably carrying a gun in the US.

I'm sorry, but that is ****.

Less that half of US Americans own guns (the actual numbers are not well known, but probably around 35%), and the majority of the guns in US households are for hunting. People just don't carry guns around in their cars, the way they do in the movies.

p.s. there's plenty of hooting and honking in parts of the big cities. There are many differences in driving culture between the US and the UK, but guns aren't part of it.

“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.”― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom

I'm wondering whether some of the alleged 'rear-ends' are in fact close passes that resulted in a collision? The aftermath is likely to be the same: the motor vehicle ran over the bike and/or cyclist. The motorist is unlikely to be a reliable witness to what happened, and if the cyclist is dead and there are no other witnesses...

Unless of course driver fatigue is a factor. I would imagine that many roads in the USA are long, straight and featureless, with little to grab the driver's attention.

We're planning to go over to the USA (Baltimore and Washington area), later this year, and hire a car when we get there. We'll see for ourselves. At least I'm used to handling fatigue when driving - long journeys through France have taught me.

Vorpal wrote:People just don't carry guns around in their cars, the way they do in the movies.

Have you looked at the Concealed Carry numbers in the US? And Google will provide you with plenty of examples of road rage shootings. The other person possibly carrying a gun reduces crime is one of the main arguments of the US concealed carry proponents

661-Pete wrote:Unless of course driver fatigue is a factor. I would imagine that many roads in the USA are long, straight and featureless, with little to grab the driver's attention.

Many years ago I lived in the Netherlands and back in those days they were desperately planting trees, putting up (unnecessary) signs, anything along the polder dyke roads as drivers were suffering something called "polder blindness". The grey sky meeting the grey water with no features anywhere would make them "hypnotised" or just sleepy/inattentive as there was nothing to keep them alert; and they were ending-up just driving off the road into the water.

Psamathe wrote:The grey sky meeting the grey water with no features anywhere would make them "hypnotised" or just sleepy/inattentive as there was nothing to keep them alert; and they were ending-up just driving off the road into the water.